Truly Neutral USA in WW1

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
The "US" as a nation was acting as you say: in their own interests. The administration of Wilson was a different story. When I said the "US" was biased, I was referring the presidential administration, a part of the "US" rather than the whole thing. It seems you misunderstood my reference.

Snip...

There were massive differences between the British and German blockade, but I wasn't discussing that issue. My maritime law the British were not allowed to block neutral shipping from entering German ports, so long as they did not have contraband. Food was not contraband pre-war, but the British did redefine it as such, as with all trade goods, and prevented any ships from docking with German ports that they could. Granted the blockade was much more than just keeping ships away, it was monopolizing trade and cutting deals with suppliers, but nevertheless it still did involve preventing any trade with Germany.

That was the entire point of WJB conflict with the Wilson administration, as US companies were no longer allowed to directly trade with Germany, AH, Bulgaria, or the Ottoman Empire, which was in direct violation of neutral rights in maritime law, not the London Declaration. Wilson and his cabinet chose to overlook this, despite being guaranteed Entente trade and regardless of their policy toward the blockade. In that regard Wilson was pro-Entente because he did not make an issue of the violation of neutral, specifically US, trade rights in time of war, something that was already agreed on before the non-implemented London agreement.

So, what would happen if the U.S. had a different president like Taft or Roosevelt, who wouldn't have overlooked a violation of American trade rights?
 

Deleted member 1487

So, what would happen if the U.S. had a different president like Taft or Roosevelt, who wouldn't have overlooked a violation of American trade rights?

Roosevelt wanted war over Belgium, so it wouldn't have been an issue, but Taft is a bit harder to place. He helped found the League of Enforced Peace:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_to_Enforce_Peace
which would have fought Germany had it been in effect in 1914, but there is nothing about his willingness to enter the Great War. The Wiki article indicates that they weren't interested in fighting once the war already started, but wanted to create a deterrent to future conflict. Nevertheless it sounded anti-German because they invaded Belgium, so I don't know if they'd be interested in enforcing trade rights that would allow Germany to get supplies from abroad.
 
Bear in mind that the POTUS can't declare war, and while the US had fought armed conflicts without a declaration of war prior to WWI, none of them had been with a major power.

So you need to consider not just the president, but congress as well. The 1917 DoW wasn't close, but it wasn't unopposed either.
 

Deleted member 1487

Bear in mind that the POTUS can't declare war, and while the US had fought armed conflicts without a declaration of war prior to WWI, none of them had been with a major power.

So you need to consider not just the president, but congress as well. The 1917 DoW wasn't close, but it wasn't unopposed either.

Quasi-war with France?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War

And the US declaration of war was pretty close to unanimous.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/07/firstworldwar
 
No Wilson was softly pro-Entente.


You're still getting it backwards.

Wilson was pro-Entente in the same manner that US banks and businesses were pro-Entente: The Ententes' goals and desires happened to be in "synch" more often with Wilson's goals and desires than the Central Powers' goals and desires.

It wasn't a case of Wilson saying "Because I am pro-Entente, I will shape my policies in this manner."

Instead, it was a case of Wilson saying "These are my policies, policies of which the Entente happens to partially share."

He wanted what was in the best interest of the US as far as his ideals were concerned, which he felt an Entente victory was part of.

Precisely. The Entente and an Entente victory was more in "synch" with what Wilson felt were the best interests of the US.

There were massive differences between the British and German blockade, but I wasn't discussing that issue.

Yes you are. You're stating that the British blockade was the equivalent to the German blockade because both were illegal under international law. What you're overlooking, perhaps deliberately, is the fact that there are different levels of illegality.

The Kaiser made the same complaint to the US ambassador you're making here and the US ambassador explained the differences in illegality to him in the same way I've repeatedly explained to you: Britain was walking through someone's flower beds while Germany was breaking into someone's home and committing murder.

Pedantically there is no difference. In the real world, however, there is a huge difference and in the real world that difference mattered greatly.

That was the entire point of WJB conflict with the Wilson administration, as US companies were no longer allowed to directly trade with Germany, AH, Bulgaria, or the Ottoman Empire, which was in direct violation of neutral rights in maritime law, not the London Declaration.

Bryant was a wooly-headed idealist who was only present in the Cabinet because Wilson intended from the start to act as his own Secretary of State. Bryant was an empty man filling an empty chair and his objections were routinely ignored for that reason.

I think you are starting to purposely misconstrue my arguments. I did not equate the British and French with the Russians; rather I grouped them together to make my argument because they were the Entente, just as I grouped the Germans, AH, Bulgarians and Ottomans despite these nations having different records of treating their minorities and allowing self governance.

You grouped them together because you want to ignore the huge changes in Wilson and the situation between the time when Wilson first articulated the 14 Points and the time when Wilson went to Versailles.

When he first presented the 14 Points, Wilson was an avowed neutral who was going to fix everyone's problems thanks to his superior intellect and morality while reaping their fulsome praise. When Wilson went to Versailles, Wilson was a holy warrior and part of a victorious alliance which had just defeated the enemies of civilization and made the world safe for democracy.

Those two Wilsons and their thinking cannot be compared.

Suggesting that holy warrior Wilson of Versailles was going to insist that 14 Points be imposed equally on his allies and his enemies is nonsense. Failing to comprehend that the holy warrior Wilson of Versailles was completely different from the priest king Wilson of the 14 Points is a fatal flaw at the heart of your suggestions.

I'm not 'imposing my 2011' views of human rights on the situation and I challenge you to cite exactly where I do that.

Right here in Post #19: ... Russian empire, Britain with Ireland, France with Corsica and Breton, not to mention the efforts to suppress regionalism throughout the nation, often through violating human rights...

Wilson didn't even support human rights in the US, so suggesting he somehow kowtowed to the Entente and backed down from a position supporting human rights ignores the facts, the man, and the times.

I'm using 1914-1918 values to note that Wilson did not apply the same standards in his 14 points to the Entente and Central Powers.

Again, the standards changed because Wilson went to war. Once the US went to war the 14 Points, fully or in part, were not going to be applied to the Entente. Instead, the victors were going to impose the 14 Points on the Central Powers.

Honestly of all nations at that time, the worst offender by the standards of the day were the Russians...

And Wilson wasn't alone when he remarked that the collapse of Czarist Russia neatly removed the problems supporting Czarist Russia raised.

Wilson did fight for his 14 points...

He fought for them to be imposed on the losers and then not even all of the losers because the 14 Points and all the rest of Wilson's "benevolence" only applied to whites and "honorary" whites as the Japanese delegation would soon learn.

Complaining that the holy warrior Wilson at Versailles didn't treat his enemies like his allies ignores how Wilson and the situation had changed.

Insulting me and calling it a kindness if quite a leap.

I didn't insult you. I pointed out your incomprehension of the facts just as you were kind enough to point out my incomprehension of the facts regarding the A-H government.

Among other things, you thought the Federal Reserve ordered US banks to loan to the Entente and you thought the London Declaration proscribed selling goods instead of allowing certain goods to be legally seized.

You can keep that sort of kindness and argue without resulting to blanket condemnations of my points, which often don't relate to what I'm even discussing.

I'm not making a blanket condemnation of you points. I am pointing out that the thinking behind much of them is flawed because of an incomprehension of the facts. I didn't comprehend the nature of the A-H Empire's internal politics and you were kind enough to explain them to me. You didn't comprehend the role of the Federal Reserve or how Entente economic penetration shaped US policies and I tried to explain that to you.

If I've wounded your feelings you have my sincere apologies. I will also retire from this thread so as not to cause further offense, inadvertent as it was on my part.
 
Don Lardo, yes, Barbara Tuchmann's book was superbly written and often entertaining, in a train wreck in progress fashion.:)


Check out Kahn's The Codebreakers. I'm quite sure you'll enjoy it too. :)

Kahn uses the entire affair as a way to knit together several topics into a concise example. He goes over how the keys were developed through pure mathematics, old school espionage, and other methods, how cables were monitored and interesting messages plucked out of the traffic, and lots of other nuts and bolts type stuff.

IIRC, he even provides a portion of the encrypted text and the key as an exercise for the reader to produce the plain text.
 

I had forgotten that one, but Adams still didn't act without Congress. Congress authorized a naval force to be raised, and authorized attacks on French ships.

And the US declaration of war was pretty close to unanimous.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/07/firstworldwar

I said it wasn't close, didn't I? But for comparison, look at the initial WWII DoW.

56 Senators and Congressmen voted against the DoW on Germany in 1917. That's more than 10% of Congress.
ONE voted against the DoW on Japan in 1941. Less than 2/10 of 1%. That's pretty close to unanimous.
 

Deleted member 1487

You're still getting it backwards.

Wilson was pro-Entente in the same manner that US banks and businesses were pro-Entente: The Ententes' goals and desires happened to be in "synch" more often with Wilson's goals and desires than the Central Powers' goals and desires.

It wasn't a case of Wilson saying "Because I am pro-Entente, I will shape my policies in this manner."

Instead, it was a case of Wilson saying "These are my policies, policies of which the Entente happens to partially share."
Perhaps, however the result was the same: Wilson saw Germany as the enemy of civilization based upon their militarism and actions early in the war. Though Wilson hated imperialism and colonialism, which is why he wasn't entirely pro-Entente, he still wanted to see an Entente victory and wasn't willing to protest violations of neutral rights early in the war. Yes his attitude changed as the Entente proved they weren't saints, but early in the war, the period under discussion, he took 'soft' positions that aided the Entente because he did not force the issue. As the war went on his position on these issues changed, and if it were not for the Germans ridiculous actions, the blockade would have been challenged and the turning of a blind eye to American civilians to Canada to join the army would have stopped.



Yes you are. You're stating that the British blockade was the equivalent to the German blockade because both were illegal under international law. What you're overlooking, perhaps deliberately, is the fact that there are different levels of illegality.

The Kaiser made the same complaint to the US ambassador you're making here and the US ambassador explained the differences in illegality to him in the same way I've repeatedly explained to you: Britain was walking through someone's flower beds while Germany was breaking into someone's home and committing murder.

Pedantically there is no difference. In the real world, however, there is a huge difference and in the real world that difference mattered greatly.
I never mentioned the German blockade until you brought it up as an argument. Both blockades were illegal, the German version more so, but nevertheless the Brits still violated maritime law. Continually talking about my garden isn't going to change the fact that by maritime law British ships still stopped neutral ships trying to enter German ports from doing so, regardless of the content of their cargo. Yes, this happened rarely because of the Entente's deals and threats against suppliers and neutrals, but it was still happening, even to American ships.
http://books.google.com/books?id=pj...&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Bryant was a wooly-headed idealist who was only present in the Cabinet because Wilson intended from the start to act as his own Secretary of State. Bryant was an empty man filling an empty chair and his objections were routinely ignored for that reason.
It doesn't make his objections less valid.

You grouped them together because you want to ignore the huge changes in Wilson and the situation between the time when Wilson first articulated the 14 Points and the time when Wilson went to Versailles.

I grouped them together because they were all Entente nations who were not mentioned in the 14 points despite violating the principles voiced by Wilson during the speech themselves. Versailles was not in my mind when I wrote this:
his 14 points were decidedly pro-Entente as most territory to be given back (Alsace-Lorraine, all parts of Russia, all Polish areas, Italian areas of AH) were not to be even given a plebiscite to ask what they wanted and all ethnic groups given freedom to decide their own future (mainly in AH and Ottoman Empire) were in Central Powers nations, but nearly none in Entente nations, which left multinational and oppressive regimes in the Entente free to do as they wished (Russian empire, Britain with Ireland, France with Corsica and Breton, not to mention the efforts to suppress regionalism throughout the nation, often through violating human rights).


When he first presented the 14 Points, Wilson was an avowed neutral who was going to fix everyone's problems thanks to his superior intellect and morality while reaping their fulsome praise. When Wilson went to Versailles, Wilson was a holy warrior and part of a victorious alliance which had just defeated the enemies of civilization and made the world safe for democracy.

Those two Wilsons and their thinking cannot be compared.

Suggesting that holy warrior Wilson of Versailles was going to insist that 14 Points be imposed equally on his allies and his enemies is nonsense. Failing to comprehend that the holy warrior Wilson of Versailles was completely different from the priest king Wilson of the 14 Points is a fatal flaw at the heart of your suggestions.
Correct and I initially did not compare them. I was mainly talking about the Wilson of the 1914-1916 period, when TTL would be taking place and Wilson let the blockade pass with minor protests. I realize including the 1918 14 points speech did muddy the waters, as the US was a belligerent at that point, but it does show that Wilson's ideals only extended to the Central Powers, not to every nation on the planet.


Right here in Post #19: ... Russian empire, Britain with Ireland, France with Corsica and Breton, not to mention the efforts to suppress regionalism throughout the nation, often through violating human rights...

Wilson didn't even support human rights in the US, so suggesting he somehow kowtowed to the Entente and backed down from a position supporting human rights ignores the facts, the man, and the times.
Wilson used the phrase Human Rights to talk about the German submarine campaign. I understand that it is a loaded word to use in 2011 to discuss this issue, however he did talk about human and ethnic rights within the Central Powers area, but not within the Entente nations. Even concerning the Irish issue, which included white people, Wilson considered the British to be a 'civilizing' force that was good for the Irish, but thought the Germans and Austrians were brutes for forcing their language and culture on the Poles and subject peoples of the AH empire.

Within context the times, only caring out the rights of whites, Wilson was a hypocrite when talking about German oppression and self determination, but British or French within Europe. I'm not saying that he kowtowed to them, but he did willfully ignore their violations of rights while criticizing their neighbors, all while stating the British and French culture was superior privately.

Again, the standards changed because Wilson went to war. Once the US went to war the 14 Points, fully or in part, were not going to be applied to the Entente. Instead, the victors were going to impose the 14 Points on the Central Powers.
True. The 14 points though only came about after war was declared. It was to be a basis for a peace negotiation.

And Wilson wasn't alone when he remarked that the collapse of Czarist Russia neatly removed the problems supporting Czarist Russia raised.
As did I in this thread. But still he doesn't even broach the issue in his declaration on ethnic rights.


He fought for them to be imposed on the losers and then not even all of the losers because the 14 Points and all the rest of Wilson's "benevolence" only applied to whites and "honorary" whites as the Japanese delegation would soon learn.

Complaining that the holy warrior Wilson at Versailles didn't treat his enemies like his allies ignores how Wilson and the situation had changed.
I'm not complaining about Wilson doing ANYTHING. I am stating what his motivations were and trying to demonstrate how his actions were pro-Entente based on ideals and biases that he had toward the European situation. Support for any side or nation in the war was a gradient and though Wilson was lower on the gradient, edging toward neutral, he still leaned toward the Entente.
 

Deleted member 1487

I had forgotten that one, but Adams still didn't act without Congress. Congress authorized a naval force to be raised, and authorized attacks on French ships.



I said it wasn't close, didn't I? But for comparison, look at the initial WWII DoW.

56 Senators and Congressmen voted against the DoW on Germany in 1917. That's more than 10% of Congress.
ONE voted against the DoW on Japan in 1941. Less than 2/10 of 1%. That's pretty close to unanimous.

It was also a vastly different situation. Germany did not sneak attack the US in 1917 and hit American soil. I'm sorry if I misread you post, I thought you said it WAS close. My bad.
 
Support for any side or nation in the war was a gradient and though Wilson was lower on the gradient, edging toward neutral, he still leaned toward the Entente.


In that we are in complete agreement.

(I know I'd said I'd retire from the thread, but I had to post what I posted above.)
 

Deleted member 1487

In that we are in complete agreement.

(I know I'd said I'd retire from the thread, but I had to post what I posted above.)

I don't want you to retire from the thread, as I don't mind arguing with you. I just object to the tone and verbiage you were using to make your points.

And I'm glad that we can agree on something, as I respect your grasp of the matters, though I may not agree with all of your positions ;)
 
I don't want you to retire from the thread, as I don't mind arguing with you. I just object to the tone and verbiage you were using to make your points.


Thank you, but after this I'll still retire from the thread. :)


About the 14 Points, there is the "official" 14 Points which Wilson released as a purely propaganda effort in January 1918 and the thinking behind the 14 Points which Wilson had been expressing since the war began. Wilson had speaking about the "14 Points" both conceptually and in specific examples long before the propaganda-driven 14 Points were released.

Here's a link to Wilson's (in)famous Peace Without Victory speech made before the US Senate in January 1917 just months before the Zimmerman Telegram and all the rest led to the US declaration of war. If you compare the text of that speech with the text of the official 14 Points released a year later, you'll see a huge number of similarities.

The neutral priest-king Wilson had a 14 Points-ish program always in mind, a program which he spoke of often in public and private and one that would be applied to all of the combatants equally. The holy warrior Wilson took that thinking and recast it into the "official" 14 Points which was then widely disseminated for propaganda purposes in the hopes that the Central Powers would ask to negotiate.

Of course, anyone at the time who bothered to think about it would have realized that Wilson could not make promises for his allies. The very muted response of the other Entente governments to Wilson's propaganda piece should have been given people pause too.

The 14 Points as stated in January 1918 definitely weren't Entente policy and weren't actually US policy either as the US Senate would soon prove. Instead, they were Wilson's personal policy, a policy he couldn't enforce or negotiate into implementation and a policy he didn't truly believe in anyway.
 
Just to hark back to the OP:- The treaty of London did not get passed by the Houses of Parliament here in the UK and therefore there is no obligation to follow it.

The UK government did offer to 'honour' the agreement, subject to modifications as needed, which they did, although I suspect that to the more litigeous orientated the modifications were too flexible and 'often'.

Also the German tried to place an embargo on the Entente powers through diplomatic means.
 

Deleted member 1487

Thank you, but after this I'll still retire from the thread. :)


About the 14 Points, there is the "official" 14 Points which Wilson released as a purely propaganda effort in January 1918 and the thinking behind the 14 Points which Wilson had been expressing since the war began. Wilson had speaking about the "14 Points" both conceptually and in specific examples long before the propaganda-driven 14 Points were released.

Here's a link to Wilson's (in)famous Peace Without Victory speech made before the US Senate in January 1917 just months before the Zimmerman Telegram and all the rest led to the US declaration of war. If you compare the text of that speech with the text of the official 14 Points released a year later, you'll see a huge number of similarities.

The neutral priest-king Wilson had a 14 Points-ish program always in mind, a program which he spoke of often in public and private and one that would be applied to all of the combatants equally. The holy warrior Wilson took that thinking and recast it into the "official" 14 Points which was then widely disseminated for propaganda purposes in the hopes that the Central Powers would ask to negotiate.

Of course, anyone at the time who bothered to think about it would have realized that Wilson could not make promises for his allies. The very muted response of the other Entente governments to Wilson's propaganda piece should have been given people pause too.

The 14 Points as stated in January 1918 definitely weren't Entente policy and weren't actually US policy either as the US Senate would soon prove. Instead, they were Wilson's personal policy, a policy he couldn't enforce or negotiate into implementation and a policy he didn't truly believe in anyway.

I think it is indicative of his opinions and views. You are very right that it was just his personal stance, which incidentally the Germans chose to negotiate on in November 1918, but it still goes to show that he only expected the Germans to live up to them, not the Entente, even before the declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare, just as he was cutting loans to the Entente and was preparing to settle the blockade issue.


Just to hark back to the OP:- The treaty of London did not get passed by the Houses of Parliament here in the UK and therefore there is no obligation to follow it.

The UK government did offer to 'honour' the agreement, subject to modifications as needed, which they did, although I suspect that to the more litigeous orientated the modifications were too flexible and 'often'.

Also the German tried to place an embargo on the Entente powers through diplomatic means.

They were still bound by maritime law, which prohibited their wartime unilateral redefinition of contraband and violating the rights of neutrals.

What embargo did the Germans try to place on the Entente 'through diplomatic means'?
 
The US contribution in 1916 and after was to keep the Allies afloat financially so they could keep fighting the war. If the USA is true neutral, the money dries up, war's over. If this happens around late 1916, the Ottomans have won at Kut and Gallipoli, and the Germans and Austrians have taken both Romania and Serbia, and also beaten Russia black and blue while halting everything the British and French have thrown after them.

*All* the Central Powers would be very obviously the victors then.
 
The Entente would of still won the first world war without the assistance of the United States for several reasons

- The United Kingdom and France were already pushing forward with several offensive plans before the United States participated in the first battles.

- The German Empire was being starved into submission. The Royal Navy made sure that no supplies go through and the German Navy could not break the blockade even with several attempts.

- The Austrian Empire was in an even worse state. It could not even supply it's soldiers with decent food let alone the population. They were losing against Serbia being supported by the United Kingdom and France several offensives were being made and they were winning.

- The Ottoman Empire was falling apart. After the capture of several important religious sites the Ottoman Empire was dead.

More people would of died and the war would of carried on for several years. Perhaps this increased bloodshed and horror could of killed Adolf Hitler and following events would never take place.

1) This POD ignores that no US loans = Allied financial reserves shrivel up and die because they can't afford WWI, this after the Ottomans have been beating the British black and blue and the Germans and Austrians and Bulgarians in the Balkans and against Russia and repeated failures to have more than Pyrrhic successes on the Western Front. It's a CP victory economically and militarily.

2) Without that financial aid this means nothing.

3) You do remember that Serbia was out of the war from 1915 onward, right? Well before true US neutrality would have mattered.

4) Only by 1917 when everybody else was, too. By the time US aid would have mattered the Ottomans would have beaten the British twice in two humiliating defeats for the Brits.
 
The US contribution in 1916 and after was to keep the Allies afloat financially

Actually, the US funding was mainly to supply dollars so that the DEntente Governments could pay the bills in Dollars as required by the contracts.

It is a common misconception that a loan in one currency = no cash.

However, without those loans, they would only be able to purchase from the US according to their own dollar currency generation, which is a very different position.
 
Top